Why Academic Drug Discovery Makes Sense
See: Why Academic Drug Discovery Makes Sense–Science. A letter by Kozikowski et al in response to a prior letter by John Erickson of Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, which argued that academics shouldn’t be involved with translational research (i.e. discovery to clinic science). For those of you who don’t subscribe, Erickson argued that industry is spending billions on translational research, with less than encouraging results, so why should academia (i.e. public funding) think it can do any better. To his way of thinking public funds would be better spent in purely basic research. Kozikowski argues that Pharma R&D spending represents a failed commercial paradigm and furthermore that academia is missing only a network of skilled medicinal chemists to play a key role in translational drug research.
My take? I think they’re both right to some extent. The pharma research paradigm has so far failed to take advantage of the rapid increase in our knowledge of human biology. But it’s not for lack of trying, and I think pharma is on the verge of an innovation explosion that will surpass its innovation output of the late 80’s through late 90’s. The fact that Pharma research is commerce-driven means that alternate (i.e. not-for-profit) funding sources for drug discovery are imperative to ensure that diseases primarily affecting economically disadvantaged populations are not overlooked by modern science. To this end, Kozikowski’s call for robust public funding of drug discovery and translational research is rational and consistent with the principles and policies of our nation.
